I would note that the phrase “suitcase nuke” is often used metaphorically for nukes that are delivered by directly installation either in a vehicle or in some basement.
The point is that you don’t need an ICBM or even a bomber to deliver a nuke.
(There is also the possibility of setting off a “dirty bomb” as well, that is a dispersal device consisting of conventional explosives packed with radioactive materials.)
As an aside, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists discusses large and small atomic bombs developed by the US and USSR here.
Whether any Arab or Persian states have access to small A-bombs is something I don’t pretend to know.
As for the OP, I don’t see how the situation can be resolved without pulling Hamas into the talks. Arafat, IMHO, could say anything he wants in Arabic or Swedish and it wouldn’t give Sharon his 1 week respite from the suicide bombers.
Personally, I don’t see any imminent peaceful path out of the current situation. Let’s hope that’s due to my lack of imagination and expertise.
Jeez Collounsbury, why do you have to continually sidetrack discussions with nitpicking over relatively minor points? In any event, you’re wrong. Yes, there are some analysts who believe that the chance of Iran having an ICBM within 10 years to be less than 50-50, and a couple who think it’s a ‘longshot’. There are also plenty of them who think that it’s a near certainty. No one thought that the North Koreans were anywhere near ICBM capability either, until they surprised the world by attempting to launch a satellite in 1998. The attempt failed, but it showed the world that they were a hell of a lot closer than anyone thought.
But the reason your nitpicking is trivial is because we both agree that Iran has medium-range missiles (1200 km), and you’ll probably agree that they’ll have the longer range (2000 km) missile fairly soon. The Shihab-3 missile is currently in mass production - they’ve fired off lots of successful test shots of it, too.
2000km allows Iran to hit southern EU states, anywhere in Israel, Russia, Ukraine, Pakistan, India, and numerous U.S. interests. That gives Iran a much bigger stick in the balance-of-power game and could destabilize the region further. Bad news. The only reason it hasn’t been a factor to date is because Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons. But they’re trying. They have a uranium enrichment program underway, and the CIA’s latest threat estimate is that Iran may be able to build a bomb with its own fissile material by 2005. The CIA also said that there is a ‘significant risk’ that Iran has fissile materials now, purchased from former Soviet states. A lesser worry is cooperation between Iraq and Iran - bitter enemies, but Saddam has been making friendly overtures to Iran for some time. Iraq had a much more advanced nuclear program than did Iran, and would be a valuable source of technical assistance. Iraq could also be a conduit for Iranian nuclear weapons or dirty nuclear materials from its reactor programs, and various terrorist organizations.
It would seem to me that the “X days of peace and then we’ll talk” propositions are doomed to fail, Arafat in control or not. If you give a terrorist power to single-handedly destroy a peace progress by successfully carrying out a strike, you can rest assured that the fanatics will be chomping at the bit to do just that.
Considering that, I can’t see any solution to the matter apart from Israel somehow building enough goodwill among the Pals to undermine support for the fanatics. And the present course of action certainly does not help that. “Destroying the terrorist infrastructure” is a nigh useless goal when the various groups effectively blend into the general populace, and when the occupation generates more bomber candidates every day.
Sorry, astro, but what you say is only true on one side. The Israelis were ready to give Arafat about 90% of what he said he wanted, and he asked for more. The Israelis know what the other side (that is, the moderate Palestinians) want, and are willing to talk about compromise.
It’s the Palestinians who want the destruction of all of Israel, for whom “compromise” is a meaningless term.
So the lack of willingness or ability to compromise is only on one side. This has been shown repeatedly. Sharon (and every Israeli Prime Minister before him) sets some very reasonable requirements for discussion and Arafat rejects them and sets very unreasonable requirements for discussion.
Typical Israeli requests as pre-requisites for discussion: Arafat to denounce (in Arabic) the terrorists and suicide bombers; one week of no suicide bombers
Typical Arafat requests as pre-requisites for discussion: Israel to pull back to pre-1967 borders, Israel to withdraw military
Agreed. That’s why I used the quotation marks–“suitcase nukes”–to denote I was speaking metaphorically.
The physical size of the device is irrelevant. All that matters is the explosive force. Components of a much larger bomb could be brought into the country, assembled, prepositioned, and then detonated when needed. Arguing over the actual size misses the larger point.
It should also be noted that North Korea is now believed to have the bomb.
It seems that this “hatred” business has been dealt with in another GD thread. Feel free to join in there if you want, but please don’t drag it up again.
I suppose I do, if that’s what’s necessary to bring a degree of balance and caution to scaremongering reaction.
“Relatively minor” of course is relative, insofar as if an argument, as it did, rests exagerated claims in re ME being able to hit the US and debatable claims as to threat in the region, it shouldn’t be left to stand.
Some, plenty… I could give a fuck about numbers. I go with who I trust and who gives me a sense they (a) don’t have an axe to grind (b) know the region.
I’ll take yours to the bank.
They had cobbled together a multi-stage unstable rocket. Close?
I wasn’t arguing against the threat of theatre weapons, I was arguing against the hysterical idea that anyone in the region would be able to threaten the ‘heartland’ directly via missiles.
It’s not necessarily disturbing that Arafat rejected that particular offer, but it is disturbing that he broke off negotiations completely and launched the intifada.
The Israelis were still moving their position towards his. Diplomacy WAS working. The Israeli offer was far better than most people thought Arafat would get. He chose to not even try to negotiate from that starting point.
Frankly, I think Arafat broke off talks simply because he WAS getting too much of what he ‘wanted’. Either it wasn’t politically acceptable to his militant population and supporters, or he recognized that peace was not necessarily good for Yasser Arafat.
Or, we accept this radical idea: ARAFAT WANTS WHAT HE SAYS HE WANTS. That is, what he says he wants when speaking in Arabic to his own people. It’s the height of wishful thinking to hear Arafat scream in Arabic about a ‘million martyrs’ like he did last week, or hear him rant in Arabic about the total destruction of Israel, and then go, “Well, he doesn’t really mean that, because when he’s talking to his enemies in English he doesn’t say it.”
Sorry Sam, I missed the total destruction part. Can you point me towards the Arabic sourcing on this? I missed it and I’d like to hear what he was saying.
U.S. Intelligence Estimate Warns of Rising Missile Threats
Howard Diamond
IN A NEW National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), summarized and submitted by the National Intelligence Council (NIC) as an unclassified report to Congress, the U.S. intelligence community has concluded that “during the next 15 years the United States most likely will face ICBM threats from Russia, China and North Korea, probably from Iran and possibly from Iraq.” While detailing the growing missile capabilities of the so-called rogue states, the report, released on September 9, noted that the Russian threat will remain the “most robust and lethal.” Theater and national missile defenses will, according to the report, prompt countries developing missiles to respond by “deploying larger forces, penetration aids and countermeasures.”
The NIC identified three key characteristics of the evolving missile threat. First, that the majority of missile proliferation is occurring below the ICBM (5,500-kilometer range) level. Second, many countries developing ICBMs “probably assess that the threat of their use” would deter, complicate or constrain U.S. action, despite Washington’s recognized military superiority. Third, the probability of ballistic missile use against "U.S. forces or interests,"including with nuclear, chemical or biological warheads, has increased to a level higher than that experienced during most of the Cold War. The report further pointed out that “emerging long-range missile powers do not appear to rely on robust test programs,” and may be willing to deploy missiles after a single test, thereby reducing the intelligence community’s ability to provide adequate warning of ICBM deployment.
Overall, the NIC described the new missile threats as involving states with “considerably fewer missiles with less accuracy, yield, survivability, reliability, and range-payload capability” than those faced in the past. In comparison with Chinese and Russian ICBM stocks, the estimate emphasized that “initial North Korean, Iranian and Iraqi ICBMs would probably be fewer in number—a few to tens rather than hundreds or thousands.”
North Korea’s test of a three stage “Taepodong” missile on August 31, 1998, halted the Clinton Administration’s escalating claims in 1998 of success in its “engagement” policy towards North Korea. Those claims were already in doubt due to the revelations two weeks earlier of U.S. intelligence findings that North Korea was constructing underground an apparent nuclear installation. A more profound development came later in the form of reported U.S. intelligence assessments regarding the missile test. These findings are that: 1) the third stage of the missile, claimed as a satellite by North Korea, traveled over 3,000 miles and landed in waters near Alaska. 2) North Korea will have a missile capable of striking Alaska and Hawaii by 2002, for practical purposes an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). 3) North Korea is constructing underground sites to deploy these missiles (which suggests deployment as early as 2000). 4) North Korea will have a longer-range ICBM capable of striking the U.S. west coast and other parts of the continental United States within five years…
"It was Prof Yablokov, a distinguished ecologist, academician and former special adviser to Boris Yeltsin, who first alerted the world to the danger posed by the bombs - ideal portable terrorist weapons. In October, he told a United States Congressional committee that he was “absolutely certain” they had been built as he had met someone involved in their construction.
This week he told The Telegraph that while there was “no certainty” that any of the bombs were unaccounted for, there were indeed “some suspicions”. He said: “I won’t say how many I think have gone missing - you will publish it and scare the whole world,” he said. “It is a question of units, not dozens.”
The Kremlin’s decision to draft the professor represents a momentous U-turn. Only a week earlier, Prof Yablokov had issued an ultimatum to President Yeltsin, threatening to go public with technical details of the bombs if action were not taken immediately.
The Kremlin’s decision also represents a personal triumph for US Congressman Curt Weldon. As chairman of the House of Representatives’ National Security, in May, he disclosed that Gen Alexander Lebed had told him of his own concerns about suitcase nuclear weapons. Gen Lebed, who in his brief six months in government was charged by President Yeltsin to review nuclear security, said that only 48 out of 132 known bombs had been adequately accounted for.
He suspected that some of the weapons may have been built for the KGB by the Ministry of Atomic Energy without the knowledge of the Defence Ministry. Yesterday Mr Weldon welcomed the news of Prof Yablokov’s appointment as vindicating his campaign. “We finally have full confirmation of our suspicions that these devices have existed and do exist,” Mr Weldon said. “This is not a time to embarrass Russia, but to come together to secure nuclear stability for people in Russia, the US and the world.”
Small, tactical nuclear devices have long been deployed on both sides of the Cold War trenches. The US military is believed to have as many as 600 atomic demolition munitions (ADMs) - some of which are known to troops as “satchel” bombs. The weapons were intended for special forces to use behind enemy lines for blowing up key infrastructure like airports and roads. Similar equipment is understood to have been issued to Soviet Spetznaz units as part of some 25,000 tactical nuclear weapons in the Red Army’s armoury.
I can appreciate the difficulty of Israel’s position. In Israel there exists a genuine, albeit not unanimous, willingness to negotiate a real peace treaty. The terms of this theoretical treaty would be that the Palestinians would regain control over some portion of the land they want in exchange for withdrawing claims to other land, recognizing the right of Israel to exist, and taking meaningful steps to stop violence against Israel.
The problem is that there is not broad support for this platform amongst the Palestinians. There are certainly Palestinians who want peace but they are not willing to stop the Palestinians who want to fight. Virtually all Palestinians want land returned to their control; but unfortunately many Palestinians would use this returned land as a base to continue attacking Israel. Israel, rationally, does not want to give up land under those circumstances.
So one of three things will be needed to bring peace to the middle east. One would be the rise of a leader or movement within the Palestinians that convinced the majority of Palestinians that peace with half a country is preferable to war. Second would be for the Palestinians to achieve enough power to force the Israelis to surrender territory so they can establish a state; in such a circumstance you might achieve a “cold war” peace between the neighboring nations (which is roughly the relationship between Israel and Syria has become). Third would be for some third party to dominate the entire region and force all the local inhabitants to accept a dictated peace.
Personally, I don’t see any of these scenarios coming to pass soon.
Perhaps, Urban Ranger, it might pay to take a look at the realities of military tactics and econo-military strategy.
Isreal’s best–some think “only” instead of “best”–course of action is to kill all the Palestinians. Evicting them from the area will not work–it would only prolong an already agregious problem. While such a course of action might seem to be a instance of Justice Scalia’s “Shumpater’s Law”, Chm. Arafat and the various Palestinian organizations have increasingly made it Isreal’s best, if not only, available option.
If that is the course of action that Isreal eventually takes, it will face World-wide ire. There will be a rabid response from the Arab World and perhaps the entire Muslim World. If Isreal is economically self-sufficient, both can be withstood.
If Isreal is as militarily strong as it was in, say, the 1973 War, an responsive attack from Isreal’s neighbors could actually leave Isreal in a very advantageous position, with respect to resources and land.
The Middle Eastern situation is truly grim; but, in my opinion, Isreal’s isn’t–except in an ethical sense.
Um, Parameter, Israel hasn’t even killed off Hezbollah. The remnants of the Palestinians will join them and will make al-Qaeda look like a bunch of rich Arabs bored with their lives.
[quoteThe amount of support for peace among the Palestinians is inversely proportional to the amount of violence that’s being applied by the IDF.
The more brutal the suppression, the less support is there for peace and more support for the radical groups such as Hamas.[/quote]
But what’s the alternative. Suppose a unilateral peace party took over the Israeli government. They immediatley withdraw all troops from the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Hieghts and turn over all this territory to Palestinian control and allow them to form an independant country without any restrictions from Israel. In other words, this peace party gives the Palestinians basically everything they could possibly expect to receive in any treaty.
What would then happen? Do you think that all Palestinians would be so happy that there would be peace? The reality is that while perhaps 90% of the Palestinians would accept the situation and get on with building a new country, the other 10% would declare that the struggle was only half over and they wouldn’t rest until they controlled all of Israel (which is Hamas’ current platform incidentally). And with an independant country to work from, their attack base would be much stronger than it has been.
So the Israelis figure that controlling the Palestinians’ capabilities is a better goal than trying to win over their hearts and minds.
I was speaking of the near-future. You don’t seem to get the grim full picture: What remnants of the Palestinians?
Israel, with tightly closed borders, with no Palestinians within those borders, would be an isolated country; but it would still exist as a country–well into the future.
The Palestinians, playing a very dangerous game, are leaving Israel with only a variety of exceptionally unpleasant choices.
I did not give my comments as a choice that anyone would want to choose–not after the WW II nightmares in Europe and China. I was simply codifying the realities.
Winning the Hearts and minds of the Palestinians’ is the only way for Israel to live in peace, clear and outright oppression is the only way to ensure more bombings.